Miles Mathis and the death of mainstream science

Hello again, anti-stupidity here, and I've found something that may be more worth than the last post I did. I was once googling, time is motion, and came up with page from this site. It is huge and possibly way beyond what I know, then again I don't know physics beyond middle school, but want to know if it is credible. Some of what it goes over is simple and straight forward while some the rest is against most of main stream science. It gives a differential view of what mainstream science is saying, i be it, a bit mean spirited.

Call me a paper boy, but i've got some interesting news, want a read.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you quote something specific so we can discuss before we reject it.
You won't get fooled by mainstream so the question presents as to why you are so easily taken in by non mainstream.
But post something more than a link for discussion I find it tiresome visiting sites and feeling foolish that I have bothered.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have a saying "follow the money".
It answers many questions and if you apply it to Mr. Mathis you may work out that he is selling a book.
Presumably there is more money to be made selling non text books to folk ignorant of science than to sell a real text book on real science.
Don't be fooled, don't buy his book don't waste time on folk who criticize yet offer no alternative to the current model.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is crap. It took about 5 minutes to find glaring errors.

 

I bet it would have taken even less time if you did not have to search past the book add.
Alex

 

I categorised it as Jibber Jabbar written down.

Reference to below does he have a twin brother?

Jibber Jabber is a Canadian children's television series about twin brothers, Jibber and Jabber, who like to imagine things.

Twinless Humpty (I did think one time Poe might be my twin sister)

 

Now that would have to the best name for a law firm ever.
Alex

 

Wasn't there a movie where the judge kept saying to one of the lawyers he was speaking Jibber Jabbar?

 

Well over hear the use of Jibber Jabbar to describe someone running off at the mouth is very common.
You will often here someone say "enough of the jibber jabbar talk English" or "I asked and all I got was jibber jabbar" or "I don't understand it's just jibber jabber".
I would not be surprised if its origin was from our Aboriginal people.
I have herd them use it frequently.
Alex

 

jibber-jabber

A word made up by Mr. T.
Talking or speaking nonsense.

Shut up all the jibber-jabber, fool.

But another source gives it

1. n. Incoherent or unintelligable speech; has it's origins from the word gibberish
2. adj. Word used to describe incoherent speech
3. v. To speak inchoherently

Bob: Did you understand what that theory meant?
Dave: No, I dont understand quantum mechanics, so it all sounded like jibber-jabber to me.

and

Origin

English

gibber
jabber

jibber-jabber

early 19th century: related to gibber1, jabber.

Over here! Australia? Where the bloody hell do you think I am?

Cheers

Dumpty laughing

 

I don't know.
But thinking more I can recall early on Jabber jabber being used rather than jibber jabber.
"She just went on jabber jabber"
And sometimes..
"She just went on jabber jabber jabber"
And some have been heard speaking jibberish.
Alex

 

I started to read through it and so far so good. Chapter 1, I agree with, as i'm in the time is an illusion camp or it is just movement so I agree with what he said. Partly, until he decided to take a dick shot at my most favorite equation ever, the Minkowski metric. Onto to chapter 2 about the apparent wrongness of angular momentum and angular velocity equations, http://milesmathis.com/angle.html. Please join me.

Any high school physics book will have a section on angular motion, and it will contain the equations I will correct here. So there is nothing esoteric or mysterious about this problem. It has been sitting right out in the open for centuries.

Good so far.

To begin with, we are given an angular velocity ω, which is a velocity expressed in radians by the equation
ω = 2π/t
Then, we want an equation to go from linear velocity v to angular velocity ω. Since v = 2πr/t, the equation must be
v = rω

Seems very simple, but it is wrong. In the equation v = 2πr/t, the velocity is not a linear velocity. Linear velocity is linear, by the equation x/t. It is a straight-line vector. But 2πr/t curves; it is not linear. The value 2πr is the circumference of the circle, which is a curve. You cannot have a curve over a time, and then claim that the velocity is linear. The value 2πr/t is an orbital velocity, not a linear velocity.

This correct?

 

Then we take a Cowpat, which has been traveling at an unknown speed, towards a spinning vortex, and convert it into lead before it hits the blades.

Lead, which as we all know stops Superman's X-ray vision, is only two micro Pico's short of gold.

From there it is but a small step to produce gold, fame and fortune, Nobel prizes and Miss Universe as a wife.

Humpty Dumpty dreaming as usual and
Poe the romantic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please, be more specific.

 

Or demeaning.

 

I thought Miles was onto something once. No more, sadly. Some of his better ideas are actually recycled.

There exists actual science and supporting math that is even more radical than Miles has said in on some topics and in some respects.

 

Is any of it worth saving or paying merit too, danshawen.

 

L

Actually there are so many issues around mainstream cosmology, that every second guy is an expert. There is no doubt that mainstream cosmology would get an overhaul, but this guy Mathis is miles away from making any change.

 

Noted.

 

Only one of his ideas gave me pause. The idea was that a ratio defining the nature of time must contain the fastest velocity in the universe, and that ratio cannot be the ratio of the speed of light to unity. Velocity comparison in a proportional relationship that includes time itself will fail for the same reason division by zero or multiplication by infinity does. This makes relativity consistent but incomplete.

Our measure of time is always based on a velocity and a proportional relationship. As long as this is the case, our understanding of time itself is incomplete.

Quantum spin / entanglement is faster.